Why American Isolationism Is A Really Bad Idea

On July 18th, Gates of Vienna posted an article explaining why ignoring the establishment of a caliphate in the Middle East is a major mistake. In the eyes of Muslims who believe in the Koran, there are certain privileges that come with the establishment of a caliphate and the existence of a caliph in charge of that caliphate. I need to explain here that there are no ‘moderate Muslims’ who believe in the Koran–the Koran makes very clear that the obligation of Muslims is to wage war on the infidels. There are many ‘moderate Muslims’ who discount what the Koran says and have no desire to wage war on the infidels, but unfortunately, they tend to be rather quiet.

The article at Gates of Vienna explains the dangers of a Muslim caliphate. The article quotes Egyptian-American scholar of Islam and Middle East history Raymond Ibrahim:

The very existence of a caliphate would usher a state of constant hostility: Both historically and doctrinally, the caliphate is obligated to wage jihad, at least annually, to bring the “disbelieving” world under Islamic dominion and enforce sharia law. Most of what is today called the “Muslim world”-from Morocco to Pakistan-was conquered, bit by bit, by a caliphate begun in Arabia in 632.

A caliphate represents a permanent, ideological enemy, not a temporal enemy that can be bought or pacified through diplomacy or concessions — economic or otherwise. Short of agreeing either to convert to Islam or live as second-class citizens, or “dhimmis” — who, among other indignities, must practice their religions quietly; pay a higher tax [jizyah]; give way to Muslims on the street; wear clothing that distinguishes them from Muslims, the start of the yellow star of David required for the Jews by the Nazis during World War II; have their testimony be worth half of a Muslim’s; and never retaliate against Muslim abuses-the jihad continues.

A caliphate is precisely what Islamists around the world are feverishly seeking to establish — before people realize what it represents and try to prevent it. Without active, preemptive measures, it is only a matter of time before they succeed.

Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch is also quoted in the article:

And now it [the caliphate] is here, although it is by no means clear, of course, that The Islamic State will be viable or long-lasting. If it is, however, the world could soon be engulfed in a much larger conflict with Islamic jihadists even than it has been since 9/11. For in Islamic law, only the caliph is authorized — and indeed, has the responsibility — to declare offensive jihad against non-Muslim states. In his absence, all jihad must be defensive only, which is why Islamic jihadists retail laundry lists of grievances when explaining and justifying their actions: without these grievances and a caliph, they have to cast all their actions as responses to Infidel atrocities. With a caliph, however, that obligation will be gone. And the bloodshed in that event could make the world situation since 9/11, with its 20,000 jihad attacks worldwide, seem like a harmless bit of “interfaith dialogue.”

Unfortunately, there will come a time in the near future when America and Western Europe will have to stand up to a Muslim caliphate. It will have to be done before the population demographic in Europe changes enough to make it automatically part of the caliphate. If we wait too long, the Muslim population in Western Europe will reach a point where it represents the majority of the people in Western Europe. At that point, America (and Canada) will stand alone.

Watching Britain Lose Its Freedom

Today’s U.K. Mail Online posted an article about the introduction of Sharia Law into the British legal system.

The article reports:

Keith Porteous Wood, executive director of the National Secular Society, an organisation that campaigns for strict separation of the state from religious institutions and equality of religion before the law, says the move is a backwards step that undermines British justice.

He said: ‘The UK has the most comprehensive equality laws in the world, yet the Law Society seems determined to undermine this by giving approval to a system that relegates women, non-Muslim and children born out of wedlock to second class citizenship.

‘Instead of running scared at any mention of sharia, politicians of all parties should face these issues square on and insist on the primacy of democratically-determined human rights-compliant law.

‘Laws determined by Parliament should prevail over centuries-old theocratic laws. We should have One Law for All, not allowing any law to operate which disadvantages any sections of the community.’

Robert Spencer at Jihad Watch points out some of the problems with Sharia Law:

Under ground-breaking guidance, produced by The Law Society, High Street solicitors will be able to write Islamic wills that deny women an equal share of inheritances and exclude unbelievers altogether.

The documents, which would be recognised by Britain’s courts, will also prevent children born out of wedlock – and even those who have been adopted – from being counted as legitimate heirs.

Anyone married in a church, or in a civil ceremony, could be excluded from succession under Sharia principles, which recognise only Muslim weddings for inheritance purposes.

…Keith Porteous Wood, executive director of the National Secular Society, said: “This guidance marks a further stage in the British legal establishment’s undermining of democratically determined human rights-compliant law in favour of religious law from another era and another culture. British equality law is more comprehensive in scope and remedies than any elsewhere in the world. Instead of protecting it, The Law Society seems determined to sacrifice the progress made in the last 500 years.”

Lady Cox said: “Everyone has freedom to make their own will and everyone has freedom to let those wills reflect their religious beliefs. But to have an organisation such as The Law Society seeming to promote or encourage a policy which is inherently gender discriminatory in a way which will have very serious implications for women and possibly for children is a matter of deep concern.”

This is a serious step toward undermining the freedom of the citizens of Britain. Sharia Law includes such things as executing people for converting to Christianity and stoning rape victims. If the British embrace part of Sharia Law, will they be able to avoid having to live with all of the law.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Shariah’s Assault on Free Speech

Last night I had the privilege of attending an event in Stoughton, Massachusetts, at the Ahavath Torah Congregation. I am posting the video of the event (which is almost two hours long, but well worth watching) below, but I will also share my notes from the event.

The event was called “Shariah’s Assault on Free Speech.” The event was moderated by Michael Graham. The four speakers, who are all too familiar with the consequences of Sharia Law, were Lars Hedegaard, President of the Danish Free Press Society, a historian and a journalist; Robert Spencer, the director of Jihad Watch, a program of the David Horowitz Freedom Center, and the author of twelve books, including two New York Times bestsellers; Tiffany Gabbay, Assistant Editor and Foreign Affairs Editor for TheBlaze; and Andrew G. Bostom, (MD, MS), author and Associate Professor of Medicine at Brown University Medical School. He is also well known for his writings on Islam as the author of The Legacy of Jihad (2005).

One of the topics discussed during the event was the fact that in America we have reached the point where speech is considered offensive based on who is offended by it not by what is said–you can hurl pretty much any insult or slander at Christians and Jews, but if you say something against Islam, you are engaging in hate speech.

Andy Bostom pointed out that the Assembly of Muslim Jurists in America, a Muslim lawyers group, has issued a fatwa demanding execution for insulting the prophet. A recent unscientific survey of 600 successful Muslims, done through trade magazines, showed that 58 percent of the Muslims surveyed felt that anyone who criticized either Islam or Mohammad should receive the death penalty. It is chilling to me that when President Obama addressed the United Nations, he included in his remarks the statement, “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.” Does he understand that under the Islamic definition of slander, declaring that Jesus is God is slander (because it states that Mohammad is not God)? The Islamic definition of slander is not related to truth–slander is any negative comment about Islam or the prophet whether or not it is true.

Part of the problem is America’s educational system. Somehow in an effort not to offend anyone, we have declared all cultures equal. All cultures are not equal. One of the attributes of Western Culture is the problem solving process based on open debate. Western Culture embraces the scientific method; Islamic culture does not. Because of this, progress is stifled. In Islamic countries there is a very small or non-existent middle class, and little chance of upward mobility for the average person. We need to go back to teaching our children to cherish America–even though we have faults, we are one of the best countries in the world to live in. Our children need to know that.

Please watch the video above the hear the full story.Enhanced by Zemanta